This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 17:05, 11 November 2022 (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Theistic philosophies (11 articles) Configured as topic=Philosophy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:05, 11 November 2022 by Cewbot (talk | contribs) (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Theistic philosophies (11 articles) Configured as topic=Philosophy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | |||
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
create page and paragraph: strong theism (usually tautological to monotheism)
prerequisites for strong theism
(otherwise God or the gods might not be cosmogonic and cosmocentric )
- self-causation/self-causality of personhood
- involvement of personhood in cosmogony
details in French: L'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de le personnétat
(Keep it because some English speakers speak French or use autotranslation. The main article has to be enriched.)
Religiologiquement, l'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de l'état de la personne ( anglais : personhood ) sont les principaux éléments du théisme fort ( personocratie métaphysique et non un rôle secondaire au divin ). Si le personnétat ( l'état de la personne ) n'est pas en soi auto-causé et cosmogonique, dans ce cas Dieu a des ingrédients, et en aucun cas il n'est aisé de prouver qu'ils co-sythétisent un tout indivisible tandis qu'en étant séparé de son essence ( ousia ). ( Le personnétat est produit par un organe pensant, qui doit remplir de nombreuses conditions préalables ; voir : « Mary Anne Warren - the criteria of personhood ». Le cerveau humain utilise de nombreuses parties pour atteindre le personnétat ; voir : Nancy Kanwisher, Mark Solms. Les théistes ne fournissent aucune explication sur les mécanismes de l'âme. L'âme est un simple méréologique ( voir : méréologie, simple en philosophie ), elle est donc incapable de transmettre des informations plus d'un shannon ( unité d'information ), et elle est incapable d'exprimer différentes sous-routines comme les aires de Brodmann. ) Il est très difficile pour un Dieu avec des ingrédients discrets ( inévident et multisubstantiel ) d'être interprété comme l'origine de tout.
Le Dieu impersonnel / athée, est un sophisme superficiel et une altération lexicale ( une confusion avec son antonyme généralement pour tromperie rhétorique ).
________
En philosophie, on ne peut prétendre avoir une vue supérieure qui reste injustifiée.
Weasel words regarding proof
This sentence from the article is problematic: "There have been many proofs of Monotheism postulated by a multitude of philosophers and academics throughout history." Even though the word "postulated" makes the sentence technically true, a careless reader could easily take the sentence to imply that there were many valid proofs of monotheism. This sentence should be removed or replaced with something with a neutral point of view linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/Existence_of_God for example. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett
- Thanks for the note. I for one agree with you, so you can try your hand at it, and I will be checking and adding comments and edits if needed, to what you come up with. Since you are apparently also signing your name, I'd suggest you login as a registered user to start making your edits. Thank you and good luck, warshy 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- And thank you as well, warshy. My preference would be to delete the sentence. If anyone has an interest in adding a history section, the link I mentioned and many others would be appropriate. I'm not inclined to try to fix the sentence again because last time I did, it got reverted. I do appreciate the encouragement to create an account, but I don't have time today. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett
- Whenever you do have sometime, and if you feel so inclined, I'd encourage you to try your hand at a better statement, instead of the one you have identified. If I agree with your suggested edit, I don't think it would be reverted. Thank you for caring about the accuracy of the content of this page. Be well, warshy 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Function of the fact that in theology arguments are called proofs. Suggest reversing word order -- "Philosophers and academics throughout history have postulated many proofs of Monotheism." Could further make it "postulated many arguments claimed as proofs" for caution's sake. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Whenever you do have sometime, and if you feel so inclined, I'd encourage you to try your hand at a better statement, instead of the one you have identified. If I agree with your suggested edit, I don't think it would be reverted. Thank you for caring about the accuracy of the content of this page. Be well, warshy 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- And thank you as well, warshy. My preference would be to delete the sentence. If anyone has an interest in adding a history section, the link I mentioned and many others would be appropriate. I'm not inclined to try to fix the sentence again because last time I did, it got reverted. I do appreciate the encouragement to create an account, but I don't have time today. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett
"charged particles in the neutron beam"?????
Why, why, why on earth was the below citation placed under 'Autotheism'?
I don't know who added it there but I'm sure there was a reason why.
I can't access the document; whoever placed it there, could you explain? Thanks :))
Jain, Mahavir (1976), "Neutron Experiments at Lampf", Few Body Dynamics, Elsevier, pp. 215–219, doi:10.1016/b978-0-7204-0481-4.50063-0, ISBN 978-0-7204-0481-4, retrieved 2020-11-10 FatalSubjectivities (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- Religion articles needing attention
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Atheism articles
- Top-importance Atheism articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class philosophy of religion articles
- High-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- Philosophy articles needing attention